Tag: dcr

Comments on Longfellow Bridge Rehabilitation (MassDOT File No. 604361) and Craigie Bridge Reconstruction

Comments on Longfellow Bridge Rehabilitation (MassDOT File No. 604361) and Craigie Bridge Reconstruction

By |

October 28, 2014

Richard Davey, Secretary
MassDOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

Email: Richard.Davey@state.ma.us

Re: Longfellow Bridge Rehabilitation (MassDOT File No. 604361) and Craigie Bridge Reconstruction

Dear Secretary Davey;

We are writing to you regarding two outstanding issues for bicycle and pedestrian accommodation related to the Longfellow Bridge Reconstruction project. As we approach the annual Moving Together Conference which focuses attention on MassDOT’s support for and promotion of active transportation, we think this is a perfect time for MassDOT to demonstrate its commitment by taking positive action on these issues.

Craigie Bridge Reconstruction

From the outset, we have advocated strenuously for the provision of bicycle facilities on the Craigie Bridge/Dam. Many public hearings were held and DCR and MassDOT promised clearly and consistently that bicycle lanes would be established on the Craigie Bridge/Dam (aka O’Brien Highway between Land Boulevard and Charles Circle) as part of the Longfellow Bridge construction project, once the Longfellow Bridge was reopened. While we did not concur that the establishment of the bicycle lanes should wait – it would have been far better to construct them from the outset, a position we continue to maintain – we fully expect that the committed‐to bicycle lanes (or cycle tracks) will be constructed. To our frustration, we have learned that the latest plans do not include this work.

We would like your assurances that bicycle lanes will be included and we would also like to see the actual plans that include this promised component of the design.

Longfellow Bridge

We do not think that the proposed design connecting bicycle lanes on the Longfellow Bridge with Main Street in Cambridge is the safest option. The proposed design puts cyclists in an exposed, highly uncomfortable, and dangerous situation, situating them between two high‐speed travel lanes and having a long area with conflicts with turning vehicles. Many cyclists will not follow the path of travel, staying either in the right lane or traveling on the sidewalk risking conflict with pedestrians under these conditions.

We recognize that this design follows traditional AASHTO guidance, which was developed quite a while ago, without the benefit of the wealth and breadth of experience and design guidance we have today. Fortunately, there is a better solution, proposed by the City of Cambridge, which we endorse for its benefits to pedestrian, cyclist, and car safety. The updated proposal (design attached as Exhibit A to this letter) is demonstrably preferable from a cyclist’s perspective and is also beneficial for pedestrians. A clear, comfortable bicycle facility that accommodates all riders will minimize the likelihood that any cyclists will ride on the sidewalk. In addition, a better crossing facility that slows traffic and focuses the yield situation will help pedestrians crossing as well. MassDOT’s proposed design, which incorporates a lengthy car‐bike conflict zone and obligates cyclists to ride between two high‐speed traffic lanes, can be expected to place bicyclists at considerable risk and thus is likely to induce bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk or deter them from riding across the bridge westbound at all. We are concerned not only about the fact that the MassDOT design will encourage high‐speed traffic and make it less likely that motorists will yield to bicyclists, but also that they will be less likely to yield to pedestrians.

We would like MassDOT to modify the current proposal and adopt the Cambridge proposal instead. We would be happy to meet with you to review our concerns.

Very truly yours,

Steven Bercu, Boston Cyclists Union

Renata Von Tscharner, Charles River Conservancy

Steven Miller, Livable Streets Alliance

David Watson, MassBike

Wendy Landman, WalkBoston

Cc: Patrick Crowley
Patrick.Crowley@jacobs.com

Frank DePaola, MassDOT
frank.depaola@state.ma.us

Ken Lamontagne, MassDOT
kenneth.lamontagne@state.ma.us

Steve McLaughlin
Steve.Mclaughlin@state.ma.us

Mark Gravallese
mark.gravallese@state.ma.us

 

Exhibit A

City of Cambridge Proposed Design for Longfellow Bridge

Attached.

 

WalkBoston statement on the Anderson Bridge Underpass

WalkBoston statement on the Anderson Bridge Underpass

By |

WalkBoston enthusiastically supports the construction of the underpass for walkers, runners and cyclists beneath the Anderson Bridge, as well as the suggestion that evaluation of this underpass might lead to similar underpass routes beneath approaches to the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges.

Underpasses add significantly to the capacity of the riverside paths and also add to the network of off-road movement options along and across the Charles River. Capital improvements for the surface of all three bridges have been discussed in detail over the past few years and initial plans show positive agency responses to our advocacy for pedestrian movement across those bridges.

The Charles River paths are a key part of the broader transportation network. This proposal highlights the necessary interconnections and reinforces the need for DCR to receive increased funds for the maintenance of these and other riverside facilities.

Boston Globe: “Anderson bridge proposal backed” 8/5/2014

Learn more about the Charles River Conservancy’s Underpasses Advocacy Campaign.

Comments on Arborway Crosswalk Improvements presentation

Comments on Arborway Crosswalk Improvements presentation

By |

May 15, 2014

Commissioner Jack Murray
Attn: Office of Public Outreach
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114

Re: Arborway Crossing

Dear Commissioner Murray:

WalkBoston attended the May 6th public meeting and has reviewed DCR’s Arborway Crosswalk Improvements presentation.

First, we are pleased that DCR has responded to community concerns regarding the crosswalk’s unsafe existing conditions. The research by Toole Design Group seems thorough and we support their analysis. I personally live just a few blocks from the Arborway crosswalk. I use the crosswalk regularly to visit the Arnold Arboretum and I drive on the Upper Arborway. I see firsthand the risks of the current configuration.

We agree with some of Toole’s recommendations:
‐ Relocate the fence to improve sight lines
‐ Upgrade WALK signal (on main Arborway) to a countdown signal
‐ Improve signage and pavement markings

However, we do not support the “tiered” approach as presented. We believe that a geometric modification must be made to ensure that vehicles slow down at the crosswalk. Anything less than this will not adequately protect park visitors from driver error (or their own error). Geometric modifications should be a top priority, not postponed till the 3rd tier. This location needs either:
‐ Installation of a Raised Crosswalk in combination with a curb extension, or
‐ Installation of a Chicane with a curb extension on the west side of the Upper Arborway.

The changes that the Town of Brookline made to Pond Avenue along Olmsted Park are a good model for raised crosswalks. Pond Avenue formerly had similarly hazardous crosswalks, somewhat greater traffic volumes, and chronic speeding. The Town installed 3 or 4 raised crosswalks between Route 9 and the Chestnut Street rotary; these force vehicles to really slow down at the crosswalks.

In addition we would like to see:
‐ Construction of a larger queuing area where pedestrians and bikes can wait on the median between the main Arborway and the Upper Arborway
‐ Installation of some physical barrier such as bollards to clearly mark the edge between the waiting area and the Upper Arborway roadway.

With changes to roadway geometry the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons — while somewhat effective — would probably be unnecessary. (In the absence of geometric modifications, the RRFBs would be a necessity.)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Arborway crosswalk safety improvements. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with any questions. We would be happy to meet with you about our recommendations.

Sincerely,
Don Eunson
Former WalkBoston Board Member and Jamaica Plain resident

cc: Patrice Kish, DCR
Julie Crockford, Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Jessica Mortell, EIT, Toole Design Group

Comments on DCR Back Bay Fens Crosswalk Improvements

Comments on DCR Back Bay Fens Crosswalk Improvements

By |

March 12, 2014

Commissioner Jack Murray
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114

Attn: Office of Public Outreach

Dear Commissioner Murray:

WalkBoston has reviewed the DCR’s Back Bay Fens Crosswalk Improvements presentation and attended the public meeting held earlier this month. We are very pleased that DCR will undertake improvements for pedestrian safety.

We offer several detailed comments on the intersection of the Fenway and Forsyth Way and the Fenway and the Fenway Service Road from Forsyth Way.

Comments on the options proposed for the intersection of the Fenway and Forsyth Way
• At this intersection, a raised crosswalk is by far the most attractive proposed improvement. Raised crosswalks never fail to slow traffic, and can be designed to have modest impacts on street drainage facilities. A raised crosswalk at this location would have the effect of slowing Fenway traffic through both of the Fenway intersections that
are to be improved.
• A clearly marked ‘stop’ line should be installed on the pavement far enough in advance of the crosswalk to allow motorists and pedestrians to see each other and pass safely through the crossing. This is very important to reduce the risk of a car in the right or left lane stopping for a pedestrian and a car in the adjacent lane continuing through the
crosswalk (the so called ‘double threat” situation).
• Warning signs alerting motorists that pedestrians and bicycles will be crossing should be added on either side of the roadway, together with arrows indicating the exact location of the crossings. The warning sign proposed for the median of the Fenway will also advise drivers of the precise location of the pedestrian crossing.
• In addition to the warning signs, we think the proposed pair of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons attached to the warning signs on each side of the road is appropriate. They are highly visible and not easily ignored. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is another option to warn drivers of pedestrian street crossings, but, as it would partially bridge the street with several signal heads, it would be intrusive in the green expanses of the Fenway and no more effective than the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon.
• The new sidewalk that is proposed for the east side of the Fenway is important for pedestrian safety and should be included in all options.
• Tighter corner radii will help to slow turning vehicles as they exits the Fenway onto Forsyth Way. At a minimum, paint or bollards should be used to tighten the curve.

Possible significant change to the intersection of the Fenway and Forsyth Way
The design presented as Alternative 3 attempts to respond to the walking desire lines that exist at this intersection. However, the alignment of the crosswalk passing through the traffic island seems quite complex and unusually situated. We think it would be advisable to have a straighter alignment for this crosswalk, following the route pedestrians really want in heading for the bridge over the Muddy River inside the Fens.

A more far-reaching option for improving the crosswalk design would be to remove the short section of Forsyth Way that connects to the Fenway, and have cars making the Forsyth Way/Fenway connection use the Fenway Service Road. Closing this portion of Forsyth Way
retrieves both the traffic island and the street right-of-way as parkland, and greatly improves potential options for a crosswalk. This new parkland affords additional options to design a connection between the Fenway and the Southwest Corridor Park, as suggested by Professor Peter Furth. The short portion of Forsyth Way between the Fenway and the Fenway Service Road could become one-way away from the Fenway, and could both be narrowed and still include parking on both sides of the street. This modest change in the street system would add parkland, simplify pedestrian and vehicle travel and allow the creation of a safer “T” intersection.

Comments on the options proposed for the intersection of the Fenway and the Fenway Service Road
• For this intersection WalkBoston prefers Alternative 4, which includes two crosswalks on the Fenway. This alternative connects closely with the existing pedestrian paths on both sides of the Fenway and directly fits with observed pedestrian desire lines.
• A raised crosswalk at this location does not appear to be necessary if one is provided at the Forsyth Way intersection with the Fenway (which effectively slows traffic as it approaches the Fenway Service Road intersection).
• The intersection should be treated the same as the Forsyth Way intersection, with a ‘stop’ line to facilitate visibility of pedestrians, signs to warn drivers of the crossings on both sides of the intersection and in the median, and a pair of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons attached to the warning signs on either side of the road.
• The proposed new sidewalk along the Fenway and the bump-outs for pedestrians at the intersection are welcome and very significant improvements included in the proposal for the intersection.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the design options. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with any questions and we would be happy to meet with you about our design suggestion.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Project Manager

CC:
Patrice Kish, DCR
Julie Crockford, Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Jessica Mortell, Toole Design

——————————————————————————————————————-
Join our Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.

Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

HANDOUT: A More Robust DCR

HANDOUT: A More Robust DCR

By |

This is an informational handout that was part of the 2014 Bike/Walk Summit presented by MassBike and WalkBoston.

The Issue – The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) owns and manages off-road paths and on street facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the Commonwealth. These facilities serve as essential active transportation corridors for local residents. As bicycling and walking continue to grow statewide, more residents are utilizing these facilities year-round and not just during warmer months.

DCR has been an active and positive partner in recent conversations with the advocacy community about how to bring agency policies around maintenance and snow removal into alignment with the use of their facilities as essential corridors for non-motorized transportation.

DCR’s budget has been cut by approximately 20% since 2008. These deep budget cuts have led to park closures, unstaffed campgrounds and unmaintained facilities.* DCR has committed to making bicycle and pedestrian transportation a priority on their facilities year-round, but the agency needs additional resources and investments to make this commitment a reality.

Ensuring that bicyclists and pedestrians can utilize our on- and off-road transportation infrastructure year-round is an essential component of achieving statewide mode shift goals.

The Ask – Funding decisions for the FY15 budget are being made right now, and we need our legislators to make sure that DCR has the resources to maintain its facilities in a manner suitable for year-round transportation.

Please ask your legislator to support increased funding for DCR parks in the FY15 budget, and urge them to provide DCR with adequate funding for its day-to-day operations and seasonal staffing so Massachusetts residents can safely use on- and off-road paths and parkways.

If you use a DCR path or parkway for your daily transportation or recreational needs, tell your legislator how increased funding for DCR would improve your ability to safely and conveniently access your destinations throughout the year.

*Source: Environmental League of Massachusetts (http://environmentalleague.org/)